View report page

52
especially if it arises from another well not subject to regular examination.
This brings into consideration all the other wells (except, of
course, those permanently sealed) and raises the question of the desirability
of regular examination of all of them, on the principle that
" prevention is better than cure." I have always felt such examinations
to be desirable, but as they necessarily involve some amount ot
trouble and expense, and cases of noticeable pollution have hitherto
been rare, it would have been difficult to justify them. I think, however,
that the position has now materially altered, and the Ministry's letter
indicates that they, too, are concerned about it, especially in regard to
disused wells. I am led to that conclusion by three main facts—the
increasing age of the borings—implying correspondingly increasing
risk of failure of the lining tubes through deterioration; the possibility
of latent damage by enemy action; and the progressive lowering of
the water level in the chalk, consequent upon intensive pumping,
whereby the risk of drawing in polluted water has increased. Bacteriological
examination is of more importance than chemical analysis, as it
provides much more definite evidence of the condition of the water.
As to the frequency with which examinations should be made, it is
somewhat difficult to advise. In view of the rapidity with which pollution
may arise, it would, in theory, be almost impossible to have them
too often, but, as already stated, they involve trouble and expense
(particularly in a well not regularly used, where, in order to obtain
a proper sample, the water would have to be pumped to waste for
several hours to remove any superficial contamination of the pumping
apparatus due to it standing idle). As a compromise, I do not think
that intervals of two months for bacteriological examination, and twelve
months for chemical analysis, would be unreasonable.
On the subject of legal powers to deal with polluted wells, the
Ministry, in their letter, call attention to powers now available to the
Council under Section 21 of the Water Act, 1945, whereby any act or
neglect causing or likely to cause pollution of any spring, well, or adit,
the water from which is used or likely to be used for human consumP'
tion or domestic purposes, or for manufacturing food or drink for
human consumption, is made a punishable offence. These powers do
not seem to differ materially from those previously provided, and still
existing, under Section 102 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1936Moreover,
Section 103 of the latter Act enables the Courts, on an
application by the Council, to close such a well if it is polluted, a power
which is not contained in the 1945 Act. Neither of the Acts, however,
appears to give any power to take action in regard to a well not used
for the purposes stated above, however polluted it may be known to be,
except possibly in the very unlikely existence of positive proof that it lS
polluting another well that was so used. The Minister has power,
under Section 6 of the 1945 Act, to make Regulations requiring records
to be kept, and returns submitted, of the quantity and quality of water
abstracted from wells, and such other matter as he may prescribeHe
has, in fact, recently made Regulations, but they relate to such
physical data as quantities of water abstracted, rest levels and pumping
levels, and do not require examinations of the quality of the water
unless specifically asked for. In an explanatory memorandum issued
with the Regulations, it is stated that such examinations will not, in
general, be required more often than once in five years. The Regulations
are enforceable by the Minister and not by the Council.